[802SEC] Re: stds-802-mobility: Inputs on IEEE 802.20 March Plenary Agenda
Jerry, thank you for your prompt response to my posting and for your
willingness to begin the 802.20 opening session early if there is sufficient
With regard to the elections being held at 7:00pm on Monday, I must say that
I missed that detail in your 802.20 Policies and Procedures. I would like
to strongly urge that we hold the elections during more usual Working Group
hours for three reasons.
1) Elections are a part of the regular business of the Working Group, and
therefore should not be scheduled for evening sessions when there is a
higher likelihood of conflicts of many sorts including evening business
meetings and business dinners.
2) The elections specifically conflict with 802 sponsored tutorials which
are supposed to be open to all 802 participants.
3) Since the SEC raised the question of the last 802.20 election including a
number of people whose first interest was not 802.20, I think that we should
stay squeaky clean by holding elections at a time when other working groups
have official meetings going on, so that most of our participants will have
802.20 as their primary interest. Please note that I was not a participant
at that time and am making no claims either way about that election.
However, I do think we need to show that we are attempting to make sure such
an accusation cannot be reasonably raised about the coming election.
I am copying the SEC on this email to allow them to correct me in my
assumptions if I am off base in my assumptions.
Thank you for considering these points.
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: email@example.com Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:33 PM
Subject: stds-802-mobility: Inputs on IEEE 802.20 March Plenary Agenda
> A number of inputs have been sent regarding the high level agenda posted
for our March Plenary. Additionally I have received time requests for
planned contributions, not yet submitted.
> Obviously a detailed agenda requires knowledge of the contributions and
inputs on the priorities from the group for March. Regarding the
contributions, I do ask individuals for their inputs and at least cover
pages with a requested time allocation as soon as possible. I will send a
separate email regarding contributions shortly.
> Based on inputs and discussions in Vancouver, my view on the group's
priorities is the number one priority is resolution of comments and
consensus regarding the Requirements document. Whether we will need a day
and a half for this as Bob Love has proposed, I do not know. We should
however plan at least a day subject to the number of contributions. My view
is our number two priority is consensus on a Work Plan and project
schedule. Therefore we should plan more than an hour plus for that item. My
suggestion is at least two hours plus time needed for contributions. We can
clearly use the time on Tuesday evening to continue our session for other
topics if our priorities are clear. Please provide your inputs on priorities
as this will help on making time allocation decisions.
> Regarding proposals for changing the time of the Officer Elections, the
rationale for holding elections in evening on Monday at the plenary is
clearly to create more time for the groups key priorities and work progress.
The time for the election and the procedure for the election is stated in
the Working Group Policies and Procedures (Ver.1)and was posted before
Vancouver. The election time of 7PM on Monday at the plenary will not
> Participation in the Joint Opening with the other wireless groups has been
discussed in earlier sessions. Originally this was started as an optional
attendance slot with no credit for participation. During and after the
November Plenary, it was suggested we make this a participation credit time
slot and eliminate some duplication of topics. We started the new approach
in Vancouver. Several members have told me they want to participate in the
joint opening as this is a good way for them to understand what the other
groups are doing.
> Therefore, I would not support a change for the joint opening unless we
receive more the a small number of people supporting the change and receive
very few objections. Therefore, I do request further inputs from the group
on this topic.
> Given all the inputs currently and the anticipated further inputs, I will
create another proposed agenda with further details, as known, early next
week. Then, we will plan for a third version on March 9th after we have
final contribution inputs.
> Thank you to all who have provide inputs and proposals. I look forward to
further inputs on priorities.
> Jerry Upton
> Chair, IEEE 802.20
> In a message dated 2/18/2004 9:39:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > All,
> > On February 13th I posted an email to the reflector expressing my
disappointment with the high level agenda for our March meeting now on the
web at http://www.ieee802.org/20/meet_agenda.htm. I also suggested that we
could save time by beginning our meeting at 1:00pm Monday rather than
participating in the joint wireless opening plenary from 1:30 - 3:30pm.
Since that posting, a few people have expressed support for having 802.20
start our meeting earlier, and nobody has posted any notes opposing that
idea. As a consequence, I have taken the next step to develop a proposed
revised agenda that gives us the possibility of making significantly more
progress than the one now posted on the web site. That proposed agenda is
attached to this email.
> > One of the requirements for being able to meet earlier is having the
meeting room available. I contacted Face-To-Face Events and was told that
the meeting room that has been assigned to us is available from 1:00pm on
Monday. We need only ask for it.
> > Please review the attached agenda and express your approval or concerns
to the reflector. Please note that the proposed agenda has both the topics
to be discussed and the time allocation for each topic. Since we don't yet
know what contributions will be submitted, the agenda may have to change.
The proposed schedule has almost two hours of flexible time on Tuesday, and
again on Wednesday to accommodate such changes.
> > Note that with this proposed revised agenda there are two other possible
time periods for us to be holding Ad Hoc meetings, those times are Monday
morning 8:00 - 11:00am, and Monday evening. We should look into the
possibility of effectively utilizing those time slots as well.
> > Whatever agenda we ultimately pass, I would like to see both the
subjects to be covered and the time allocations on the schedule. It is only
by carefully managing our time that we
> > can make the necessary progress.
> > Thank you.
> > Best regards,
> > Robert D. Love
> > President, LAN Connect Consultants
> > 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
> > Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
> > email: email@example.com Fax: 208 978-1187